## Facts

- Carolyn Keegan ate canned peas served at her home after her mother purchased the can from a local grocery store where Keegan worked.
- While eating, Keegan experienced a choking sensation and dislodged a triangular piece of steel from her throat.
- Keegan alleged the can of peas contained a sharp piece of metal concealed in the peas due to the defendant’s negligent preparation, packing, and distribution.
- William Keegan, her husband, sought consequential damages for medical expenses and loss of consortium.
- The plaintiffs offered the can into evidence; it bore Green Giant branding and identifying letters/numbers stamped on its bottom.
- The store had obtained Green Giant canned peas through ordinary commercial channels from a Bangor distributor.

## Issues

1. Whether the can and label were sufficiently identified to be admitted into evidence to support an inference that Green Giant packed/distributed the peas.
2. Whether, if the can and label were admitted, the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on negligence and causation, making directed verdicts improper.

## Decision

- The court sustained the plaintiffs’ exceptions.
- The trial court erred by excluding the can and label on the ground that the writing on the label was not authenticated.
- With the can admitted, the directed verdicts for the defendant were erroneous because the case presented jury questions on product identification and negligence.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Physical objects connected to an incident are admissible when identifying circumstances reasonably show they are what the proponent claims; remaining disputes ordinarily go to weight for the jury.
- A branded container moving through ordinary channels of trade may be admitted as circumstantial evidence of product source without requiring direct proof of who printed or affixed the label.
- A manufacturer/packer of food in sealed containers owes a duty of due care to ultimate consumers.
- Evidence that a sealed food product contained a dangerous foreign object when opened and served, coupled with evidence linking the product to the defendant, can support an inference of negligence sufficient to reach the jury.

## Conclusion

Because the can bearing Green Giant branding was sufficiently identified for admission, the jury—not the court—should decide what inferences to draw about the product’s source and whether the presence of a metal fragment in the peas resulted from the defendant’s negligence; excluding the can led to improper directed verdicts.


Keegan v. Green Giant Co., 110 A.2d 599 (Me. 1954)